New posts

Reggie Gaskins

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
153
259
58
Blue Mountain Beach
I started this thread with the following title:
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy.
60,000 views/1,300 posts later
...

I knew it would be a provocative title to get the public to think about reality, not the propaganda. I wanted a real public discussion. We had a good run. Great discourse and tons of information came out that hadn’t seen the light of day because of local media politics and social media censorship.

Then the admins changed the title. Here we are now. Twilight zone.

To even begin to argue that the USSC could nullify tens of thousands of legally documented and processed title transfers, just because you want what someone else owns, is, well, ...... cute.

To demand that rightful owners of premium property must
start negotiating by giving up control of that most valuable privately owned asset after an uber aggressive lawsuit threatens an unlawful taking by the opposing party is, well, ..... sublime.

I liked it better when Dave was here attacking me and refusing to ask questions. At least he was logical in his wrongness.
 
Last edited:

EZ4144

Beach Lover
Aug 6, 2005
194
107
It will be interesting to follow the arguments all the way to the Supreme Court. My instincts say that EZ4144 has an excellent point!

A conservative ruling might be that the State owns the land and the County was at error in recording the Deed. I could also see a conservative ruling where Customary Use has precedent.

The bottom line is that we don't know what the rulings will be AND it will take a long time before we do. So my point is that the BPO and the County should mediate this and come to a workable compromise. If the BPO refuses then they risk losing in both the court of law and absolutely and certainly in the court of public opinion. If it were me I would not take that risk and use this short window of opportunity to get the County to agree to everything on their list EXCEPT the right to exclude respectful beach users. Respectful could be defined as no loud music, no vulgar language, no smoking, no tents, no fires, no overcrowding and maybe even a reserved beach space for the BPO. Why would this not be acceptable to the BFO? The answer lies in their posts in this thread: they want absolute Power! They don't need or want compensation but they do desire that power. I don't really blame it on anything other than it is a natural human trait. It is certainly not evil. The debate on who is qualified to rule goes back to the very beginning of our Constitution where Jefferson and Hamilton went back and forth on the issue. I believe Wealth desires power over what they consider is their dominion. They are able to justify it all with an almost religious spirituality of being "chosen" to rule. I hope I am wrong and this plays out in a wonderful idealistic compromise but my instincts say that it will in fact go to the Supreme Court.
If the court confirms that beaches are public, what is actually "lost"? What "rights"? The right to exclude? That's twisted.
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
It will be interesting to follow the arguments all the way to the Supreme Court. My instincts say that EZ4144 has an excellent point!
Now we have two blind people slapping each other on the back, agreeing on the color of the President’s hair.

If the court confirms that beaches are public, what is actually "lost"? What "rights"? The right to exclude? That's twisted.
If eeezeee wasn’t so serious, I’d say there was a great sense of humor lurking inside. Geeeze-ee, the right to exclude is one of the fundamental rights of owning private property. But eeezeee knows that. Just another desperate attempt to throw more “stuff” and see what sticks. But hey, at least there’s consistency.

To even begin to argue that the USSC could nullify tens of thousands of legally documented and processed title transfers, just because you want what someone else owns, is, well, ...... cute.
Much too kind.
 

SUP View

Beach Comber
Jul 22, 2019
48
43
Above Water
So my point is that the BPO and the County should mediate this and come to a workable compromise. If the BPO refuses then they risk losing in both the court of law and absolutely and certainly in the court of public opinion.

Not sure when you jumped on this train, but the BPO's have been willing from the beginning of this ridiculousness to discuss with the WCC's about a solution. But the WCC's have NEVER provided an idea or suggestion for a resolution. Wonder why? They seemingly don't want a "compromise" - they simply want this their way. The same can be said for the majority of the CU kool-aid drinking supporters.

Sort of reminds you of asking a democrat what a fair tax is for wage earners - they won't give an answer until they have all they want.

And if any attorney thinks the US Supreme Court will hear this case, then said attorney missed the first day of law school. It ain't happenin!
 

Auburn Fan

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
82
67
Auburn
Eventually crowded beach use density must be addressed and managed. Which means at some point, some form of exclusion is necessary.

This lawsuit is actually about transferring the right of exclusion from the property owner to the county, regardless of whether the homeowner currently welcomes guests on his property or not.

I don't know a single BPO whom the county approached with an offer of any compromise before suing us all across the board. Thousands of owners.
 

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
2,194
574
RG, SV, etal, Not only are my instincts right about you being power brokers but now I a certain that you are not from around here at all. Why not prove me wrong? You can't! Your purpose is to keep the BPO's aligned and on board with the lawsuit. This thread had one purpose and it was never about the 30A legacy, community or anything else but that right to exclude. It was ALL about POWER!

RG, I agree with you about this being a Twilight Zone. When you stated that you were not affiliated with a political party then it confirmed to me that you are not who you say you are. Where are you from? What research did you do? Why do you fear community? Please prove me wrong because I wasted a lot of time trying to connect to your sense of community and sense of what makes us human (humanity)!

I now believe that most of the BPO's in sowal would probably prefer to address density, behavior and vending in a settlement. Exclusion is just not that important to people who listen to their conscience. People who care about their beach community know that what goes around comes around and that circle of life is more important than the principle of exclusion on this special and unique place we call the beach.

The power brokers have a mission. It has nothing to do with community. They are political agitators. If they were hired they should be fired because they are too obvious. Too uncompromising. Too much about ONE legal principle: exclusion. Nothing about the resource. It is all a big scam. They answer NO questions about conscience, humanity or identity. I call their method: artificial intelligence :)

I do try very hard to be fair and to not attack anyone personally. I admit that it is easier said than done. Whoever these power brokers are I probably would enjoy a beverage and conversation with them face to face. I do not think that I know everything and always willing to learn. I do not believe I have any power or right to judge anyone. Listen, If you believe that a Constitutional Right is divine inspiration then who am I to judge? All I know is that my instincts are telling me that these people are not who they say they are so listen to your conscience. I have seen a lot of smiles and heard a lot of laughter on the beach. It seems to be a unique place were we can heal from unfairness and hurt feelings. It is just common sense that this issue can end with a settlement that benefits everyone!
 

BlueMtnBeachVagrant

Beach Fanatic
Jun 20, 2005
1,289
375
Dave, glad to see you again!

So, there's a snowball's chance in holy hell that your so called "compromise" will ever happen. You've been told a few times that there is no true compromise in your proposal because there is no compensation....it's all just a taking. And already expected good beach behavior is not what most would consider compensation.

I'm well aware that the core premise of your suggestion is to attempt to desperately place a small crack in the current solid legal defense of private property rights (your 500-800 feet garbage) in hopes that the private property rights will further erode over the years. Not gonna happen, ever.

As a businessman, what is it that has you so against compensation for taking private property? Because that's a compromise? If it's about money, then just raise the tax yet again. If it's about your pride, well that's just bad for everyone. The county is going in the right direction regarding the purchase of the golf acreage in Miramar Beach. Why stop there?
 
Last edited:

mputnal

Beach Fanatic
Nov 10, 2009
2,194
574
BMBV I get it. You don't care so much about the power to exclude you just want to be paid for sharing. It's all about capitalism right? Maybe you will get your wish. In eminent domain it comes down to determining "best use" of the property. Well it used to be a sand dune so maybe you can argue best use is hurricane protection. Or maybe it is chair and umbrella vending. Can't build on it because of the set backs. Seriously what do you think the beach is worth? I did not think you liked the socialistic approach of raising tax but if it gets you compensated maybe it would be okay. But just this time right?
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
Eminent domain? Sure, $400 a parcel, that’s what it cost to quiet title. And again, there’s nothing epic about this thread RG. Same finite group of people posting and viewing over and over and over again. Not too much unlike #44Followers. Goodbye
 
New posts